Indiana Attorney General Defending Gay Marriage Ban

There are 21 comments on the
www.southfloridagaynews.com
story from Dec 30, 2012, titled Indiana Attorney General Defending Gay Marriage Ban.
In it, www.southfloridagaynews.com reports that:

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller is preparing to defend the state's ban on gay marriage in the pending Supreme Court battle on the issue.
Zoeller said Friday he will file an amicus brief with the high court when it takes up California's ban on gay marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act next year.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.southfloridagaynews.com.

"it is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage,(2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment." ""If we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions."

"Conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice." "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."(In re marriage)

"In the courts final analysis, the governments only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion: DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/57794777-DOMA ...

Equal protection under the law doesn't apply to those of us that the uber religious right-wing bigots don't even consider human.

How an Attorney General charged with, among other things, protecting the rights of all the citizens of the State, could come down in favor of discriminating against a group of citizens on purely religious reasons is unfathomable to me.

Either all citizens are treated equally under the law or we are not all citizens.

What should we expect from Indiana? After all, it's the state that rationalized that since same sex couples can't f*ck up and make a baby, they had no need to be married and thusly no right to be married, in the abortion of justice known as Morrison v Sadler. On the plus side, it does make you thankful you are gay. Apparently the heterosexual instinct is to breed like bears and drives you to natural irresponsibility in the process. So much so that it means keeping marriage opposite sex only to keep them from getting confused as to what society is telling them as to the "right" thing to do with their sex lives.

What should we expect from Indiana? After all, it's the state that rationalized that since same sex couples can't f*ck up and make a baby, they had no need to be married and thusly no right to be married,

<quoted text>When you decide to turn into a disgusting pervert(gay) you LOSE some rights!LMAO!

So, you're against the Constitution of these United States. Well, at least you're honest about it. Now, you need to get the fk out of this country, because we cherish our Constitution for all citizens. Buh bye.

fr Doyle:>When you decide to turn into a disgusting pervert(gay) you LOSE some rights!...<Nobody "turns" gay. You are BORN gay or straight.

We all know that but Doyley boy thinks that people actually choose to be gay. He thinks this because he choose to mess around with another guy in his youth an now since he made that choice to "experiment" therefore it must a choice for everyone.

Of course it's not and we all know that but we choose to let him rant and rave on because then we all get to laugh at his sophism.

Just anudder zionist yew trying to subvert, convert, pervert, and corrupt America even further into the gutter. Lucifer will lose, bigtime.Bring the troops home and let Israel defend Israel. Enough of this bs dual citizenship as well. You people need to go. Take the fed with you and take the poofters with you back to Ashkezar or wherever your original bloodlines come from. You are NOT semetic! You are destroying this nation!

"it is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage,(2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment." ""If we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions.""Conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice." "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."(In re marriage)"In the courts final analysis, the governments only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion: DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/57794777-DOMA ...

You know you're hitting the right points when some troll immediately labels such a brilliant post as clueless nuts and spam.

Equal protection under the law doesn't apply to those of us that the uber religious right-wing bigots don't even consider human.How an Attorney General charged with, among other things, protecting the rights of all the citizens of the State, could come down in favor of discriminating against a group of citizens on purely religious reasons is unfathomable to me.Either all citizens are treated equally under the law or we are not all citizens.

And let's not forget this gem which is a basic concept of the law our nation was founded on:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Just anudder zionist yew trying to subvert, convert, pervert, and corrupt America even further into the gutter. Lucifer will lose, bigtime.Bring the troops home and let Israel defend Israel. Enough of this bs dual citizenship as well. You people need to go. Take the fed with you and take the poofters with you back to Ashkezar or wherever your original bloodlines come from. You are NOT semetic! You are destroying this nation!

<quoted text>So, you're against the Constitution of these United States. Well, at least you're honest about it. Now, you need to get the fk out of this country, because we cherish our Constitution for all citizens. Buh bye.

You could care less about the rights of others. That is why you are a narcissist homofascist pig. To imply somehow that buggerers qualify to be parents is insane. Not to mention placing such fine perversions into the public school system. So much for children's rights, which are the parents rights as well. Let's not kid ourselves anymore, the main players, purveyers, and pushers of all this perversion, subversion, and filth are the left wing zionist jews. The same ones that print our dough and have coerced us into destroying the Middle East for their own agenda. Some religion ya got there, bitch!

<quoted text>You could care less about the rights of others. That is why you are a narcissist homofascist pig. To imply somehow that buggerers qualify to be parents is insane. Not to mention placing such fine perversions into the public school system. So much for children's rights, which are the parents rights as well.Let's not kid ourselves anymore, the main players, purveyers, and pushers of all this perversion, subversion, and filth are the left wing zionist jews. The same ones that print our dough and have coerced us into destroying the Middle East for their own agenda. Some religion ya got there, bitch!

"People are often satisfied with their ways of life simply because it is all theyve ever known. But looking in from the outside, from the future or from a different perspective, it can be seen people may lack many inalienable human rights. Women cant drive, the differently abled are denied jobs, children arent schooled, child labour still exists, rape camps still exist, albinos are murdered for their good luck properties...While social change takes time, legislative change ought not to take longer.

Public discussion on the topic will no doubt bring heated debate. No doubt the main naysayers are the ones who will take out full-page ads using the money of their congregations. Yet one would ask all parties come to the table with facts. If decriminalising homosexuality will bring fire and brimstone, lets see an example of when this has happened (from real life, not from a parable).

If changing our immigration law such that people like Elton John are not categorised among prostitutes and imbeciles would make T&T one big orgy, show us how. If protecting the rights of gay citizens through equal opportunity laws would somehow spark economic ruin, then show us the proof.

With a little education on the topic all citizens and their respective leaders will see being gay is not a choice and being gay never hurt anyone else. The fact is these laws would really affect only the citizens they protect. The fact is some people are born with tight curls or of Indian origin or female or gay.

No one should be discriminated against by the protective services or employers or the State for any of the things they cannot change."

<quoted text>You know you're hitting the right points when some troll immediately labels such a brilliant post as clueless nuts and spam.Well done sir (or ma'm)

Hard to argue with well reasoned court decisions based on mountains of evidence and trial court findings.

That's why I also love the decimation of the procreation argument in Gill v OPM:

"This court can readily dispose of the notion that denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages might encourage responsible procreation, because the government concedes that this objective bears no rational relationship to the operation of DOMA.

But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

The same people against Christmas are the same people subverting this country with perversion and decadence such as ssm. Let alone now in this state two men engaged in buggery now qualify as being a parent. It is against the laws of nature and is a complete smear upon the principles of morality. Every child should be afforded at all costs to be able to have a 'female' mother for nurturing and care during the most indelible years of their lives. This is the left leaning moral web destroyers aka zionists spiritual war against Christains and Muslims. Let us not forget such wonderful people manipulate and basically rule our govt through aipac and have good ol Uncle Ben Bernanke printing dollars into a debt spiral that we may never recover from. The federal reserve act of 1913 pushed us headlong into two world wars that have not ended and the 1917 Balfour Declaration has been an absolute disaster for this nation. The gig is finally up! Way up!

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies..."

There has always been homosexuality, ever since man and woman were invented. I guess there were gay apes. So that's not an issue. The Republican Party should stand for freedom and only freedom. Don't raise hell about the gays, the Blacks and the Mexicans. Free people have a right to do as they damn well please."

"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay.

"The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of peoples private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someones version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays."

Thomas Jefferson: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.